Do you avoid starting a QB if your opponent is starting his #1 WR? (1 Viewer)

[Rick James]

Of course you're not benching Manning if your opponent has Wayne, but what if you're doing the QBBC thing?

Personally I love it when, for example, I'm starting Antonio Gates and my opponent is starting Rivers...because any TD thrown to Gates is a wash (he gets 6, I get 6), but I get way more points for yardage than he does. So I figure the opposite would be true as well.

If you were starting a QB like Fitzpatrick/Kitna/Stafford/whoever, would you switch QBs if your opponent that week was starting Lee Evans/Austin/Megatron/whoever?

 

[Clifford]

Of course you're not benching Manning if your opponent has Jennings, but what if you're doing the QBBC thing?

Personally I love it when, for example, I'm starting Antonio Gates and my opponent is starting Rivers...because any TD thrown to Gates is a wash (he gets 6, I get 6), but I get way more points for yardage than he does. So I figure the opposite would be true as well.

If you were starting a QB like Fitzpatrick/Kitna/Stafford/whoever, would you switch QBs if your opponent that week was starting Lee Evans/Austin/Megatron/whoever?

cocaine's a helluva drug

 

[brewer]

I prefer to start the player that I think will score the most fantasy points for me that given week.

 

[basher]

Of course you're not benching Manning if your opponent has Jennings, but what if you're doing the QBBC thing?

Personally I love it when, for example, I'm starting Antonio Gates and my opponent is starting Rivers...because any TD thrown to Gates is a wash (he gets 6, I get 6), but I get way more points for yardage than he does. So I figure the opposite would be true as well.

Although there is a counter in the fact that Rivers has more targets to throw to then Gates has people throwing to him. Rivers could easily throw 4 TDs and only 1 goes to Gates.

 

[Rick James]

Of course you're not benching Manning if your opponent has Jennings, but what if you're doing the QBBC thing?

Personally I love it when, for example, I'm starting Antonio Gates and my opponent is starting Rivers...because any TD thrown to Gates is a wash (he gets 6, I get 6), but I get way more points for yardage than he does. So I figure the opposite would be true as well.

If you were starting a QB like Fitzpatrick/Kitna/Stafford/whoever, would you switch QBs if your opponent that week was starting Lee Evans/Austin/Megatron/whoever?

cocaine's a helluva drug

haha, oops. I started out w/ Rodgers + Jennings, but for some reason decided Manning was better.

 

[Blind Tiger]

I prefer to start the player that I think will score the most fantasy points for me that given week.

Me too.

 

[DocHolliday]

I start the player that I think is going to get me the most points. The rest is noise.

 

[Lehigh98]

I prefer to start the player that I think will score the most fantasy points for me that given week.

Me too.

+1

 

[Leroy Hoard]

I prefer to start the player that I think will score the most fantasy points for me that given week.

Me too.

+1

 

[Billy Costigan Jr]

I prefer to start the player that I think will score the most fantasy points for me that given week.

Me too.

+1

You act like your projected numbers are going to be fact.It's called hedging your bet. Sorry you guys don't get it.

 

[Phurfur]

That is a formula for success.

 

[NCPanthersFan]

Depends on the scoring system and if the guys you are trying to sit are studs.

Otherwise I purposely target WR's that my division mates QB's are throwing to. I think it definitely helps level the playing field. Especially if there is a bonus for TD length.

 

[brewer]

I prefer to start the player that I think will score the most fantasy points for me that given week.

Me too.

+1

You act like your projected numbers are going to be fact.It's called hedging your bet. Sorry you guys don't get it.

Oh I get it, I just disagree. Start who you believe will score the most. The opposing starting lineup shouldn't factor into your decision one bit.

 

[Blind Tiger]

I prefer to start the player that I think will score the most fantasy points for me that given week.

Me too.

+1

You act like your projected numbers are going to be fact.It's called hedging your bet. Sorry you guys don't get it.

I get it, I just like starting the person at each position that I think will score the most points. I can only submit my lineup and the goal is to maximize the points that my lineup scores each week. Starting an inferior player because of someone my opponent has in his lineup does not help accomplish that goal.

 

[Bruce Leroy]

I'm on record as stating, "You win in fantasy by starting your highest scoring players."

 

[Leroy Hoard]

I'm on record as stating, "You win in fantasy by starting your highest scoring players."

That's why you play the game.

 

[puckalicious]

Of course you're not benching Manning if your opponent has Wayne, but what if you're doing the QBBC thing?Personally I love it when, for example, I'm starting Antonio Gates and my opponent is starting Rivers...because any TD thrown to Gates is a wash (he gets 6, I get 6), but I get way more points for yardage than he does. So I figure the opposite would be true as well.If you were starting a QB like Fitzpatrick/Kitna/Stafford/whoever, would you switch QBs if your opponent that week was starting Lee Evans/Austin/Megatron/whoever?

Fitzpatrick has been on a tear and is the highest scoring QB (per game) over the last 5 weeks (he had a bye). Not sure why you'd bench him because your opponent has Evans. Evans could pull an Evans and have 0 TD's this week. Johnson has been pretty darn good.In general I suscribe to the "start the player you think scores the most", but if anything I would do the opposite you are suggesting. If your opponent has the #1WR on the team (assume that the WR usually gets the most FF points on that team) I would rather start his QB than an equivalently rated QB from a different team. The #1WR is most likely to get the TD's, so even though starting his QB negates those TDs, you are guaranteed to get those TD's. A different QB could very likely end up with less TD's putting you at a disadvantage. Sure the other QB could get more, but with the matching QB you are locked into matching score for score with a chance that a different WR/TE gets the TD instead.

 

[Ladsud]

No, NFL teams usually field more than one WR each week.

 

[John 14:6]

I prefer to start the player that I think will score the most fantasy points for me that given week.

Me too.

+1

You act like your projected numbers are going to be fact.It's called hedging your bet. Sorry you guys don't get it.

If I knew for certain who was going to score the most points, I'd of course always play those players. But in case I'm wrong, I like to make moves that can offset my opponent.For example, earlier this year I was debating between Favre and Shaun Hill for a game. When I noticed my opponent was starting Calvin Johnson and Brandon Pettigrew, I decided to go with Hill. I figured that if either of those guys scored for him, at least I'd be getting some points as well.I was also debating whether to start Brandon Lloyd when I noticed he was starting Kyle Orton. I decided to go with Lloyd, then, because I didn't want to be even more disappointed if Orton and Lloyd hooked up a lot...

 

[LittlePhatty]

Oh I get it, I just disagree. Start who you believe will score the most. The opposing starting lineup shouldn't factor into your decision one bit.

On Sunday morning, absolutely. Start the guys who you think will put up the most points.There are rare occasions though when I would at least consider looking at your opponent's QB/WR matchup.

Such a scenario only occurs if:

1. You are allowed to change players out right before games start.

2. If the proposed QB/WR decision is happening during SNF or MNF.

AND

3. You are either way behind or ahead in your matchup after all the 12:00 and 3:00 games have finished.

This is about co-variance. If your stud WR does well in the Sunday Night game then chances are good that your opponent's QB has done well too. You won't be making up a lot of points in your matchup if you are way behind. In that case, and in only that case, your "swing for the fences" move is to play a different WR if you have one remaining for Sunday Night or Monday Night Football, and then hope that he goes off for a lot of points while your opponent's QB puts up a dud. That's really your only chance for a big points swing. You can't get that if your opponent's QB is throwing TDs to your WR.

If your matchup is close, still start your stud WR. A good game by a WR can often score a bit more than a QB in standard scoring, especially with INTs and fumbles.

The co-variance approach also allows you to "play it safe" if you have a big lead in your matchup, but it probably won't make much of a difference most of the time.

Again, this is only for the rare time when Sunday Night or Monday Night games line up like that for you and your opponent. And it is still a long shot. But 95% of the time you won't be making up a 25+ point deficit if your opponent's QB is throwing to the WR you chose to start.

 

[kclien]

Never. I play my best players regardless.

 

[bleedgreen]

I don't pay attention to my opponents roster when making decisions about who I'll start. My roster is the only thing that matters and I put in who I think will get the most points.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

On Sunday morning, absolutely. Start the guys who you think will put up the most points.

There are rare occasions though when I would at least consider looking at your opponent's QB/WR matchup.

Such a scenario only occurs if:

1. You are allowed to change players out right before games start.

2. If the proposed QB/WR decision is happening during SNF or MNF.

AND

3. You are either way behind or ahead in your matchup after all the 12:00 and 3:00 games have finished.

This is about co-variance. If your stud WR does well in the Sunday Night game then chances are good that your opponent's QB has done well too. You won't be making up a lot of points in your matchup if you are way behind. In that case, and in only that case, your "swing for the fences" move is to play a different WR if you have one remaining for Sunday Night or Monday Night Football, and then hope that he goes off for a lot of points while your opponent's QB puts up a dud. That's really your only chance for a big points swing. You can't get that if your opponent's QB is throwing TDs to your WR.

If your matchup is close, still start your stud WR. A good game by a WR can often score a bit more than a QB in standard scoring, especially with INTs and fumbles.

The co-variance approach also allows you to "play it safe" if you have a big lead in your matchup, but it probably won't make much of a difference most of the time.

Again, this is only for the rare time when Sunday Night or Monday Night games line up like that for you and your opponent. And it is still a long shot. But 95% of the time you won't be making up a 25+ point deficit if your opponent's QB is throwing to the WR you chose to start.

This is the correct answer.

 

[Marauder]

Of course you're not benching Manning if your opponent has Wayne, but what if you're doing the QBBC thing?

Personally I love it when, for example, I'm starting Antonio Gates and my opponent is starting Rivers...because any TD thrown to Gates is a wash (he gets 6, I get 6), but I get way more points for yardage than he does. So I figure the opposite would be true as well.

If you were starting a QB like Fitzpatrick/Kitna/Stafford/whoever, would you switch QBs if your opponent that week was starting Lee Evans/Austin/Megatron/whoever?

I hear this a lot but I've always felt the opposite. In the Rivers vs. Gates matchup I would much prefer to have Rivers. Virtually every TD that Gates gets, Rivers gets also but Rivers could easily throw 3 or 4 TD's to other receivers. Big advantage for the Rivers owner.

 

[pennystock]

I think this topic comes up at least once every year. Generally, I go by the rule that you put in the lineup that will get you the most points, similar to most people who have responded so far.

However, if I felt like the rest of my lineup had a distinct advantage against my opponent I would consider throwing in the QB that's throwing to their WR. The theory is that you're leveling the playing field a little bit in case their WR goes off and then using your advantage in other areas to win the game. Of course, I wouldn't bench P. Manning or another stud QB and put in someone like McNabb or Freeman, but if there wasn't a big difference (in one league I have Ftzpatrick and Orton, that may be a good example) I would probably throw in Fitz even if he was projected to get a few less points if the other guy had Evans and I thought my team was better in other areas.

Just my

 

[Rick James]

Of course you're not benching Manning if your opponent has Wayne, but what if you're doing the QBBC thing?

Personally I love it when, for example, I'm starting Antonio Gates and my opponent is starting Rivers...because any TD thrown to Gates is a wash (he gets 6, I get 6), but I get way more points for yardage than he does. So I figure the opposite would be true as well.

If you were starting a QB like Fitzpatrick/Kitna/Stafford/whoever, would you switch QBs if your opponent that week was starting Lee Evans/Austin/Megatron/whoever?

I hear this a lot but I've always felt the opposite. In the Rivers vs. Gates matchup I would much prefer to have Rivers. Virtually every TD that Gates gets, Rivers gets also but Rivers could easily throw 3 or 4 TD's to other receivers. Big advantage for the Rivers owner.

Right, but you also have a QB.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Of course you're not benching Manning if your opponent has Wayne, but what if you're doing the QBBC thing?

Personally I love it when, for example, I'm starting Antonio Gates and my opponent is starting Rivers...because any TD thrown to Gates is a wash (he gets 6, I get 6), but I get way more points for yardage than he does. So I figure the opposite would be true as well.

If you were starting a QB like Fitzpatrick/Kitna/Stafford/whoever, would you switch QBs if your opponent that week was starting Lee Evans/Austin/Megatron/whoever?

I hear this a lot but I've always felt the opposite. In the Rivers vs. Gates matchup I would much prefer to have Rivers. Virtually every TD that Gates gets, Rivers gets also but Rivers could easily throw 3 or 4 TD's to other receivers. Big advantage for the Rivers owner.

Right, but you also have a QB.

And your opponent also has a TE.

 

[urbanhack]

 

[Dexter Manley]

I don't pay attention to my opponents roster when making decisions about who I'll start. My roster is the only thing that matters and I put in who I think will get the most points.

This.I literally don't look at my opponent's roster until I have my lineup set. And lots of times, I don't even know who's on the other team I'm playing until I look at my scores on Sunday night or Monday morning.Who your opponent is starting should have no impact on your decisions with who you start except in extremely rare scenarios.

 

[Dexter Manley]

Oh I get it, I just disagree. Start who you believe will score the most. The opposing starting lineup shouldn't factor into your decision one bit.

On Sunday morning, absolutely. Start the guys who you think will put up the most points.There are rare occasions though when I would at least consider looking at your opponent's QB/WR matchup.

Such a scenario only occurs if:

1. You are allowed to change players out right before games start.

2. If the proposed QB/WR decision is happening during SNF or MNF.

AND

3. You are either way behind or ahead in your matchup after all the 12:00 and 3:00 games have finished.

This is about co-variance. If your stud WR does well in the Sunday Night game then chances are good that your opponent's QB has done well too. You won't be making up a lot of points in your matchup if you are way behind. In that case, and in only that case, your "swing for the fences" move is to play a different WR if you have one remaining for Sunday Night or Monday Night Football, and then hope that he goes off for a lot of points while your opponent's QB puts up a dud. That's really your only chance for a big points swing. You can't get that if your opponent's QB is throwing TDs to your WR.

If your matchup is close, still start your stud WR. A good game by a WR can often score a bit more than a QB in standard scoring, especially with INTs and fumbles.

The co-variance approach also allows you to "play it safe" if you have a big lead in your matchup, but it probably won't make much of a difference most of the time.

Again, this is only for the rare time when Sunday Night or Monday Night games line up like that for you and your opponent. And it is still a long shot. But 95% of the time you won't be making up a 25+ point deficit if your opponent's QB is throwing to the WR you chose to start.

I don't entirely agree with this. You have to factor in injuries as well. If I had say Austin and Manningham available with 1 player left to play down by 25 points last Monday night going against the Romo owner, I would of rolled with Austin, especially since the gmen had knocked out 4 qb's previously. Maybe Romo gets knocked out of the game. Maybe Romo turns it over 4 or 5 times. Etc.

Same scenario except that I have Roy Williams and Manningham, then I would probably start Manningham.

For a real life example of how this strategy could potentially backfire, just look at how Eli and Nicks scored in last week's game. In one of my leagues Nicks nearly tripled Eli's points for that game. If an owner in this league was down a bunch to the team with Eli and subbed out Nicks for say Roy Williams at the last minute, it would of cost them the game.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

I don't pay attention to my opponents roster when making decisions about who I'll start. My roster is the only thing that matters and I put in who I think will get the most points.

This.I literally don't look at my opponent's roster until I have my lineup set. And lots of times, I don't even know who's on the other team I'm playing until I look at my scores on Sunday night or Monday morning.Who your opponent is starting should have no impact on your decisions with who you start except in extremely rare scenarios.

It's almost the same as blackjack in that you should really not concern yourself with any other players other than the dealer.

 

[JamesTheScot]

Of course you're not benching Manning if your opponent has Wayne, but what if you're doing the QBBC thing?

Personally I love it when, for example, I'm starting Antonio Gates and my opponent is starting Rivers...because any TD thrown to Gates is a wash (he gets 6, I get 6), but I get way more points for yardage than he does. So I figure the opposite would be true as well.

If you were starting a QB like Fitzpatrick/Kitna/Stafford/whoever, would you switch QBs if your opponent that week was starting Lee Evans/Austin/Megatron/whoever?

No. This line of thinking makes very little sense when you actually break it down.Are the number of throws Phillip Rivers sends towards Gates in any way determined by whether or not you and your opponent started Rivers and Gates?

No.

Wouldn't you love it more if your opponent started a different QB who threw for 0 TD's that week compared to Rivers who throws 2 TD's to Gates? Do you love it when Rivers throws for 150+ and a TD or two to Malcolm Floyd and Gates doesn't score?

So Gates is going to get his, and Rivers is going to get his, regardless of whether or not they are on your bench or in your starting lineup. The only relevant question is whether the other options at TE or QB are going to score more or less than Gates and Rivers.

The only thing under your control is choosing which of your players you get to count that week. And if Gates or Rivers are the favorite to score the most points, why in hell would you bench them in favor of a lower scoring alternative?

Making a starting decision because of your opponent's lineup is nothing more than an admission that you have no idea what you are doing that week. If you are so unsure of which QB is more likely to outscore the other, then start the QB who is throwing to the other team's WR starter if you think the rest of your lineup is better than the rest of his lineup. That's about the only way this strategy can be employed to any real effect. Since a QB can capitalize off many different receivers, I don't think you can employ this strategy with a WR decision unless your WR is the hands-down dominant go-to guy for that team.

QB Smith scoring more than QB Jones always makes Smith the better choice, regardless of who is your opponent's WR's are.

 

[Sinrman]

In one of my leagues, I was up 10 before MNF and all I had left was Eli. My opponent had Bradshaw and Steve Smith. I ended up winning by 3. I don't ever worry about

what my opponent does with his lineup. Nothing I can do about that. Worry about your own starters and keeping up with them...

 

[Black]

I prefer to start the player that I think will score the most fantasy points for me that given week.

x2. Fitzpatrick doesn't know your opponant has Lee Evans.

 

[Lash]

well, at week 8 this IS the longest the season has progressed before this questions was asked

 

[LittlePhatty]

In one of my leagues Nicks nearly tripled Eli's points for that game. If an owner in this league was down a bunch to the team with Eli and subbed out Nicks for say Roy Williams at the last minute, it would of cost them the game.

Really? What is your scoring?Eli still outscored Nicks by my league scoring, 35 to 30.

We have 6 pt passing TDs though.

Even with 4pt passing TDs, Eli would have scored 27 and Nicks 30. Not a big gain.

If your scoring is such that Nicks had triple the points of Eli in Week 7, then yeah, it doesn't matter at all. Start your WR and hope your opponent's QB has a nice game. This is all relative to the situation in your own league.

 

[Mr. Retukes]

It's called hedging your bet. Sorry you guys don't get it.

I always hedge my hedge by starting the player that I would have started in the first place. You'd be surprised how often that works.

 

[tigerz]

Seriously, hard to believe that people still can't grasp the whole concept of getting the most points possible.

Wouldn't you love it more if your opponent started a different QB who threw for 0 TD's that week compared to Rivers who throws 2 TD's to Gates? Do you love it when Rivers throws for 150+ and a TD or two to Malcolm Floyd and Gates doesn't score?So Gates is going to get his, and Rivers is going to get his, regardless of whether or not they are on your bench or in your starting lineup. The only relevant question is whether the other options at TE or QB are going to score more or less than Gates and Rivers.The only thing under your control is choosing which of your players you get to count that week. And if Gates or Rivers are the favorite to score the most points, why in hell would you bench them in favor of a lower scoring alternative?

Yup, that's pretty much it. To give an example:Let's say QB-A and WR-A are the QB and #1 WR on the same team and QB-B is a QB on a different team. The worst case scenario happens and QB-A seems to focus entirely on WR-A and he blows up. If these are the ending stats, who would you have been better off starting?Scenario A: Worst case scenario:QB-A 300 YDS 2 TD, 2 INT 18 fptsWR-A 250 yds, 2 TD, 37 fpts QB-B 250 yds, 1 TD, 1 INT 13 fptsIf you chose to start QB-B, you don't know how to play fantasy football. People tend to think they have a bigger edge if they get 13 pts from a QB on a different team than getting 18 pts on the same team as their opponents WR. The reason is because they believe the margin won't increase if the QB passes to that WR. While it's true that both sides increase by 6 points and that it is not as ideal as only your side increasing by 6 points, you don't have a choice in the matter. If you sit your best QB and that QB throws to the WR your opponent is playing then your opponent still gets those points. It's only you who loses them. Sure, you will get all the points your lesser QB would receive and your opponent would receive none of those points but if it's less than the other QB then what does it matter? What you want is to force your opponent to use a lesser WR because you are starting that WR's QB. That's how you win. In the end, if you still choose to start another QB you are just hoping he's going to suck even if he's projected well solely based on the fact that your opponent is starting him. Very illogical.

 

[bleedgreen]

lots of times, I don't even know who's on the other team I'm playing until I look at my scores on Sunday night or Monday morning.Who your opponent is starting should have no impact on your decisions with who you start except in extremely rare scenarios.

Same here...it's usually not until midway through Sunday when first checking my score, that I look at my teams opponents and their score. For the most part, I don't care at all about it. I'm focused on my roster and my team and seeing more points on my side of the scoreboard. I agree with the other posts about the rare situations going into a Sunday or Monday night game, where this could be a decision based on the players and the current fantasy score and odds of winning. But for the large majority of the time, paying attention to your team only is the way to go. No distractions, just put forth your best effort.

 

[Angus82]

lots of times, I don't even know who's on the other team I'm playing until I look at my scores on Sunday night or Monday morning.Who your opponent is starting should have no impact on your decisions with who you start except in extremely rare scenarios.

Same here...it's usually not until midway through Sunday when first checking my score, that I look at my teams opponents and their score. For the most part, I don't care at all about it. I'm focused on my roster and my team and seeing more points on my side of the scoreboard. I agree with the other posts about the rare situations going into a Sunday or Monday night game, where this could be a decision based on the players and the current fantasy score and odds of winning. But for the large majority of the time, paying attention to your team only is the way to go. No distractions, just put forth your best effort.

I must also be in agreement. I start my best team and do not look at the other line-up. My best players are all that I can do.

 

[cubbie5150]

As a blanket statement, & not exactly on point, I can't say I agree w/ those who say they literally don't even pay attention to their opponent's lineup. I'll look to see what I'm likely up against. If my opponent is stacked/has great matchups, I might bench a "steady"/"safe" player at any given position & take a chance on a player who is more volatile but w/ more upside... Other than that, yeah, generally start the guys you think/project will score the most points.

 

[kinghill]

I prefer to start the player that I think will score the most fantasy points for me that given week.

Me too.

+1

why is your name Leroy Hoard